Extremism of The Attacked Body Under The Cancer's Circumstances Where Cancer's Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 12 January 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202301.0224.
v1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.
Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 2
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 4
Henry Garrett 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 7
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 8
Abstract 9
In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperStable” 10
I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 11
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 12
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 13
Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a maximal Failed SuperHyperStable of 14
SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 15
expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 16
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, 17
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 18
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a maximal 19
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 20
neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 21
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 22
|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 23
The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 24
second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. A basic 25
familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Neutrosophic Failed 26
SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 27
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable; Cancer’s 28
Recognition 29
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 30
1 Background 31
Fuzzy set in Ref. [54] by Zadeh (1965), intuitionistic fuzzy sets in Ref. [41] by 32
Atanassov (1986), a first step to a theory of the intuitionistic fuzzy graphs in Ref. [51] 33
by Shannon and Atanassov (1994), a unifying field in logics neutrosophy: neutrosophic 34
probability, set and logic, rehoboth in Ref. [52] by Smarandache (1998), single-valued 35
neutrosophic sets in Ref. [53] by Wang et al. (2010), single-valued neutrosophic graphs 36
in Ref. [45] by Broumi et al. (2016), operations on single-valued neutrosophic graphs in 37
Ref. [37] by Akram and Shahzadi (2017), neutrosophic soft graphs in Ref. [50] by Shah 38
and Hussain (2016), bounds on the average and minimum attendance in 39
preference-based activity scheduling in Ref. [39] by Aronshtam and Ilani (2022), 40
investigating the recoverable robust single machine scheduling problem under interval 41
1/55
© 2023 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 12 January 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1
uncertainty in Ref. [44] by Bold and Goerigk (2022), polyhedra associated with 42
locating-dominating, open locating-dominating and locating total-dominating sets in 43
graphs in Ref. [38] by G. Argiroffo et al. (2022), a Vizing-type result for semi-total 44
domination in Ref. [40] by J. Asplund et al. (2020), total domination cover rubbling in 45
Ref. [42] by R.A. Beeler et al. (2020), on the global total k-domination number of 46
graphs in Ref. [43] by S. Bermudo et al. (2019), maker–breaker total domination game 47
in Ref. [46] by V. Gledel et al. (2020), a new upper bound on the total domination 48
number in graphs with minimum degree six in Ref. [47] by M.A. Henning, and A. Yeo 49
(2021), effect of predomination and vertex removal on the game total domination 50
number of a graph in Ref. [48] by V. Irsic (2019), hardness results of global total 51
k-domination problem in graphs in Ref. [49] by B.S. Panda, and P. Goyal (2021), are 52
studied. 53
Look at [32–36] for further researches on this topic. See the seminal researches [1–3]. 54
The formalization of the notions on the framework of Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 55
theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) 56
SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–29]. Two popular research books in Scribd in the terms 57
of high readers, 2638 and 3363 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [30, 31]. 58
2 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 59
Recognition toward Extreme Failed 60
SuperHyperStable 61
For giving the sense about the visions on this even, the extreme Failed 62
SuperHyperStable is applied in the general forms and the arrangements of the internal 63
venues. Regarding the generality, the next section is introduced. 64
Definition 2.1. ((neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable). 65
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 66
(i) a Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph 67
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 68
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 69
SuperHyperEdge in common; 70
(ii) a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 71
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 72
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 73
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 74
in common. 75
Definition 2.2. ((neutrosophic)δ−Failed SuperHyperStable). 76
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 77
(i) an δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 78
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 79
(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 80
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (2.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (2.2)
The Expression (2.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 81
Expression (2.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 82
2/55
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal neutrosophic of 83
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 84
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 85
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 86
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (2.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (2.4)
The Expression (2.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 87
And the Expression (2.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 88
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 89
3 General Extreme Results for Cancer’s Extreme 90
Recognition toward Extreme Failed 91
SuperHyperStable 92
For the Failed SuperHyperStable, and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, some 93
general results are introduced. 94
Remark 3.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is “redefined” 95
on the positions of the alphabets. 96
Corollary 3.2. Assume Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 97
N eutrosophic F ailedSuperHyperStable =
{theF ailedSuperHyperStableof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperDef ensiveSuperHyper
Stable|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseF ailedSuperHyperStable. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to 98
assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 99
Corollary 3.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 100
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and Failed 101
SuperHyperStable coincide. 102
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 104
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if and only if it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. 105
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 107
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 108
Corollary 3.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 109
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is 110
its Failed SuperHyperStable and reversely. 111
Corollary 3.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 112
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 113
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 114
is its Failed SuperHyperStable and reversely. 115
Corollary 3.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 116
Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t 117
well-defined. 118
3/55
Corollary 3.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 119
its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed 120
SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 121
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 123
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed 124
SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 125
Corollary 3.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 126
Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperStable is 127
well-defined. 128
Corollary 3.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 129
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its Failed 130
SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 131
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 133
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its Failed 134
SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 135
Proposition 3.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 136
is 137
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 138
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 139
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 140
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 141
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 142
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 143
Proposition 3.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 144
∅ is 145
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 146
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 147
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 148
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 149
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 150
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 151
Proposition 3.16. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 152
independent SuperHyperSet is 153
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 154
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 155
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 156
4/55
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 157
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 158
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 159
Proposition 3.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 160
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 161
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 162
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 163
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 164
(iv) : O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 165
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 166
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 167
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 168
Proposition 3.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 169
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 170
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 171
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 172
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 173
(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 174
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 175
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 176
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 177
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 179
(i) : the Failed SuperHyperStable; 180
(ii) : the Failed SuperHyperStable; 181
(iii) : the connected Failed SuperHyperStable; 182
(iv) : the O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 183
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 184
(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable. 185
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 186
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 187
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 189
(i) : the dual Failed SuperHyperStable; 190
5/55
(ii) : the dual Failed SuperHyperStable; 191
(iii) : the dual connected Failed SuperHyperStable; 192
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 193
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 194
(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable. 195
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 196
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 199
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 200
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 201
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 202
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 206
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 207
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 208
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 211
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 212
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 213
is a 214
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 218
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 219
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 220
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 223
number of 224
6/55
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 228
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 229
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 230
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 231
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 232
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 233
Proposition 3.24. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 235
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 236
(iv) : Failed SuperHyperStable; 240
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 241
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 242
Proposition 3.25. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 243
number is at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG). 244
Proposition 3.26. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 245
number is at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG). 246
Proposition 3.27. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 247
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 248
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 249
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 253
(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 255
∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet 257
in the setting of dual 258
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 262
7/55
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 263
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 264
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 266
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 268
O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting 269
of a dual 270
(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 274
(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 275
(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 276
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 278
number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 279
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 280
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 286
Proposition 3.32. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the N SHGs : (V, E) 287
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 288
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 289
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 290
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 291
Proposition 3.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 292
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 293
such that 294
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 295
(ii) vx ∈ E. 296
Proposition 3.34. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 297
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then 298
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 299
8/55
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 300
Proposition 3.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 301
Then 302
(i) Γ ≤ O; 303
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 304
Proposition 3.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 305
which is connected. Then 306
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 307
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 308
Proposition 3.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 309
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 310
SuperHyperStable; 311
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 312
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 313
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 314
a dual Failed SuperHyperStable. 315
Proposition 3.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 316
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 317
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 319
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 320
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 321
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 322
dual Failed SuperHyperStable. 323
Proposition 3.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 324
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 325
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 327
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 328
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 329
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 330
Proposition 3.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 332
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 333
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 335
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 336
9/55
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 337
Proposition 3.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 339
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal Failed SuperHyperStable; 340
(ii) Γ = 1; 341
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 342
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed SuperHyperStable. 343
Proposition 3.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 344
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 345
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 346
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 347
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 348
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 349
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 350
Proposition 3.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 351
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 352
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 354
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 355
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 356
SuperHyperStable. 357
Proposition 3.44. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 358
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 359
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 361

bnc ; 362
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 363
Failed SuperHyperStable. 364
Proposition 3.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 365
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 366
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 367
SuperHyperStable for N SHF; 368
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 369
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 370
10/55
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed 371
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 372
Proposition 3.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 373
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 374
SuperHyperSet. Then 375
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed 376
SuperHyperStable for N SHF; 377
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 378

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 379
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal Failed 380
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 381
Proposition 3.47. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 382
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 383
SuperHyperSet. Then 384
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 385
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E); 386
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 387

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 388
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal Failed SuperHyperStable 389
for N SHF : (V, E). 390
Then following statements hold; 392
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 393
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is an 394
s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 395
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 396
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual 397
s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 398
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 401
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is an 402
s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperStable; 403
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 404
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual 405
s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperStable. 406
Proposition 3.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] 407
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 408
statements hold; 409
11/55
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 410
2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 411
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 412
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 414
Failed SuperHyperStable; 415
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 416
r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 417
Proposition 3.51. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] 418
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 419
statements hold; 420
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 421
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 423
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 425
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 427
r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 428
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 430
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 431
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 432
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 434
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 436
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 439
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 441
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 442
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 443
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 445
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is 447
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 448
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 450
12/55
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 452
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 454
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 456
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 458
2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 461
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 463
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 465
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 467
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 469
2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 472
4 Motivation and Contributions 473
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 474
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. 475
Question 4.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 476
find the “ amount of Failed SuperHyperStable” of either individual of cells or the groups 477
of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 478
Failed SuperHyperStable” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group 479
of cells? 480
Question 4.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognitions” in terms 481
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 482
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 483
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ Failed 484
SuperHyperStable” and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” on 485
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. 486
5 Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable in Some 487
Extreme Situations for Cancer without any 488
names or any specific classes 489
Example 5.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 490
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 491
13/55
• On the Figure (1), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is 492
up. E1 and E3 Failed SuperHyperStable are some empty SuperHyperEdges but 493
E2 is a loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 494
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 495
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 496
an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given Failed 497
SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices is the 498
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. {V3 , V1 , V2 }. The 499
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the simple 500
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the 501
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is corresponded to a Failed SuperHyperStable 502
I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 503
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such 504
that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re 505
only three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the 506
non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple 507
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes 508
only one SuperHyperVertex. But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 509
{V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 510
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 511
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of 512
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 513
of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the 514
I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet S of 516
SuperHyperEdge in common and they are corresponded to a 518
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a 519
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to 520
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two 521
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }. Thus the 522
non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple 523
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the 524
SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t include only less than two 525
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 526
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 527
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those 528
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the Failed SuperHyperStable, is only 529
{V3 , V4 , V2 }. 530
up. E1 and E3 Failed SuperHyperStable are some empty SuperHyperEdges but 532
E2 is a loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 533
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 534
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 535
an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given Failed 536
SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices is the 537
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. {V3 , V1 , V2 }. The 538
I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 542
14/55
only one SuperHyperVertex. But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 548
{V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 549
I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet S of 555
SuperHyperEdge in common and they are corresponded to a 557
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the 563
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 566
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those 567
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the Failed SuperHyperStable, is only 568
{V3 , V4 , V1 }. 569
up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a 571
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 572
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 573
{V3 , V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The 574
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is 575
only two SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the 578
only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 581
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, doesn’t 582
have less than two SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus 583
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. 584
To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 },is the 585
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 586
the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is corresponded to a 587
Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 588
the SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 589
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and they are 590
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V2 }, Thus the 594
non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple 595
15/55
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V2 }, is the 596
SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V2 }, don’t include only more than one SuperHyperVertex in 597
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 598
mention that the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 599
Failed SuperHyperStable amid those obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 600
Failed SuperHyperStable, is only {V3 , V2 }. 601
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a Failed SuperHyperStable, is 602
up. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on 603
{F }, and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside 604
E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The SuperHyperSet of 605
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 606
SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is 607
only one SuperHyperVertex since it doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to 613
SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 614
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, 615
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 616
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of a SuperHyperSet S 621
of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 622
SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 623
that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There 625
aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 626
{V2 , V4 , V1 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is up. 627
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, 628
{V2 , V4 , V1 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, doesn’t include only less than two 629
N SHG : (V, E). 631
up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 633
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the simple 634
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 636
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only one SuperHyperVertex 638
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed 639
SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 640
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex thus 641
it doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 642
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 643
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, doesn’t have less than two 644
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 645
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them 646
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the 647
16/55
the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the 649
SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex 650
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. and it’s Failed SuperHyperStable. 651
Since it’s the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 652
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less 653
than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 654
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 655
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 656
SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 657
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a 658
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the 659
SuperHyperModel N SHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 660
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 663
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The 664
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 665
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 666
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only one 667
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 668
Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 669
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one 670
SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors 671
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the 672
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
SuperHyperVertices, 677
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 678
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 679
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 680
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a 681
17/55
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of 682
SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices 684
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 685
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 686
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, 687
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is a SuperHyperSet, 688
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 689
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a illustrated 690
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6). 691
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the simple 694
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 696
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex inside 698
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is 699
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a 700
SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of 701
pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 702
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 703
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t have less than two 704
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the non-obvious 707
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the 708
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the SuperHyperSet 709
Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 710
SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 711
{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, 715
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 716
SuperHyperStable,{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t 717
include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 718
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of depicted SuperHyperModel as the Figure 719
(7). 720
18/55
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex inside 727
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is 728
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a 729
SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of 730
pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 731
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 732
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t have less than two 733
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the non-obvious 736
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the 737
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the SuperHyperSet 738
Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 739
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 745
SuperHyperStable,{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t 746
include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 747
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 748
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The 752
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 753
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 754
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only only 755
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 756
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one 758
SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors 759
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the 760
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
19/55
SuperHyperVertices, 765
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 766
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 767
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 768
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a 769
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of 770
SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices 772
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 773
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 }.
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 774
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is a SuperHyperSet, 776
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 777
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a messy 778
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (9). 779
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only two SuperHyperVertices 786
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed 787
SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 788
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only two SuperHyperVertices 789
doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 790
20/55
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 791
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices 792
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple 793
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the 794
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 },is the non-obvious simple 795
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of 796
the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 797
{V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, doesn’t include only more 805
than one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 806
N SHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure 807
(10). 808
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 }, is the simple 811
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 813
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than one 815
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two 818
SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 819
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices 827
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and 828
it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a 829
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is a 834
N SHG : (V, E). 837
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the simple 840
SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the maximum cardinality of 842
21/55
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than two 844
SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 848
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 850
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the 851
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 852
Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of 853
SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the non-obvious simple 854
the SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 856
SuperHyperEdge in common and they are Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 858
it’s the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 859
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less 860
than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 861
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 862
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 863
Failed SuperHyperStable,{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 864
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, doesn’t include only more than one SuperHyperVertex in 865
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) in 866
highly-multiple-connected-style SuperHyperModel On the Figure (12). 867
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 872
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than two 874
SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 878
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices 886
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and 887
it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a 888
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is a 893
SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices 894
22/55
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 895
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the simple 898
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 900
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two 902
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, doesn’t 908
have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus 909
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. 910
To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the 911
the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss 913
of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 914
{V3 , V1 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, is up. The 919
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, is a 920
SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 }, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in 921
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 922
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two 929
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,{V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, 935
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple 939
the SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 941
23/55
{V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, doesn’t include only less 949
than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 950
N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 951
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex 957
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two 958
{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside 965
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 966
the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of 967
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 978
{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in 979
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 980
24/55
aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1004
SuperHyperSet,{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed 1005
SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is up. The obvious simple 1006
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is 1007
a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, does includes only less than two 1008
N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured On the 1010
Figure (17). 1011
only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1035
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 1038
{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in 1039
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 1040
• On the Figure (19), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is

up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{interior SuperHyperVertices}the number of SuperHyperEdges ,
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The

SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
25/55
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such

that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re
only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes
only less than two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled
to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended

SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertices,
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable.

Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a

SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet,
{interior SuperHyperVertices}the number of SuperHyperEdges .
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable,
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable,
is a SuperHyperSet,
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1041
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1042
• On the Figure (20), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is

up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The

SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
26/55
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such

that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re
only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes
only less than two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled
to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended

SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertices,
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable.

Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a

SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet,
{interior SuperHyperVertices}the number of SuperHyperEdges .
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable,
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable,
is a SuperHyperSet, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a 1043
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1044
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1045
N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a Failed 1046
SuperHyperStable. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the 1047
cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperStable is the cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z}. 1048
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The 1049
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of 1050
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge 1051
in common but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t have 1052
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that 1053
there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet 1054
of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality of a 1055
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 1056
27/55
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable

in the Example (5.1)

28/55


29/55


30/55


31/55

Figure 10. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyper-

Stable in the Example (5.1)
32/55


33/55


34/55


35/55


36/55


37/55
it doesn’t do the procedure such that such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 1057
SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’er at least three SuperHyperVertices inside 1058
implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1059
N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to that 1060
SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. 1061
There’re only two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1062
V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The 1063
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a 1064
SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}, includes only two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form 1065
any kind of pairs are titled SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 1066
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1067
V \ V \ {x, z}, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1068
SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 1069
SuperHyperEdge in common. 1070
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1071
Then the extreme number of Failed SuperHyperStable has, the least cardinality, the lower 1072
sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z} if there’s a 1073
Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1074
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1075
there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1076
cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a 1077
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have 1078
a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t 1079
have the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such 1080
that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. The 1081
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality 1082
of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1083
Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to 1084
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’er at least three SuperHyperVertices inside 1085
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1097
N SHG : (V, E), the extreme number of Failed SuperHyperStable has, the least 1098
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of 1099
V \ V \ {x, z} if there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower 1100
sharp bound for cardinality. 1101
If a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those interior 1103
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge exclude to any Failed SuperHyperStable. 1104
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Let a 1105
SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices. Consider z − 2 number of those 1106
38/55
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of 1107
the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the least 1108
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic 1109
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1110
V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1111
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a Failed 1112
SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t have the maximum cardinality of a 1113
a SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1115
V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1116
SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t do the 1117
procedure such that such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in 1118
common. [there’er at least three SuperHyperVertices inside implying there’s, sometimes 1119
in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, 1120
titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to that SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as 1121
S doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices inside the 1122
intended SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 1123
V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 1124
SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}, includes only 1125
two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled 1126
SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1127
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, z}, is the 1128
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) 1129
there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a 1130
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperEdge has z 1131
SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those interior SuperHyperVertices from that 1132
SuperHyperEdge exclude to any Failed SuperHyperStable. 1133
N SHG : (V, E). There’s only one SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct 1135
interior SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Failed SuperHyperStable. In other 1136
words, there’s only an unique SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct SuperHyperVertices 1137
in a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1138
SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those 1140
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding more than two distinct 1141
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. 1142
Consider there’s Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1143
bound for cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1144
N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a 1145
39/55
N SHG : (V, E), there’s only one SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct 1166
interior SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Failed SuperHyperStable. In other 1167
words, there’s only an unique SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct 1168
SuperHyperVertices in a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1169
The all interior SuperHyperVertices belong to any Failed SuperHyperStable if for any of 1171
them, there’s no other corresponded SuperHyperVertex such that the two interior 1172
SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors with an exception once. 1173
Proof. Let a SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of 1174
those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding more than two distinct 1175
Consider there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1177
N SHG : (V, E), the all interior SuperHyperVertices belong to any Failed 1200
SuperHyperStable if for any of them, there’s no other corresponded SuperHyperVertex 1201
such that the two interior SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors with 1202
an exception once. 1203
The any Failed SuperHyperStable only contains all interior SuperHyperVertices and all 1205
exterior SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has no SuperHyperNeighbors in 1206
and there’s no SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with an exception once but everything is 1207
possible about SuperHyperNeighborhoods and SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1208
40/55
SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of those 1210
N SHG : (V, E), the any Failed SuperHyperStable only contains all interior 1236
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has 1237
no SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s no SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with an 1238
exception once but everything is possible about SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1239
SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1240
Remark 5.8. The words “ Failed SuperHyperStable” and “SuperHyperDominating” 1241
both refer to the maximum type-style. In other words, they both refer to the maximum 1242
number and the SuperHyperSet with the maximum cardinality. 1243
N SHG : (V, E). Consider a SuperHyperDominating. Then a Failed SuperHyperStable is 1245
either out with one additional member. 1246
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1247
a SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (5.7), the results are up. Thus 1248
on a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), and in a 1249
SuperHyperDominating, a Failed SuperHyperStable is either out with one additional 1250
member. 1251
6 Results on in Some Specific Extreme Situations 1252
Titled Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1253
Proposition 6.1. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then a Failed 1254
SuperHyperStable-style with the maximum SuperHyperCardinality is a SuperHyperSet of 1255
the interior SuperHyperVertices. 1256
41/55
Proposition 6.2. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then a Failed 1257
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices with only all 1258
exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1259
SuperHyperEdges excluding only two interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1260
SuperHyperEdges. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the interior 1261
SuperHyperVertices minus their SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one. 1262
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1263
has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of those SuperHyperVertices from 1264
that SuperHyperEdge excluding more than two distinct SuperHyperVertices, exclude to 1265
any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a Failed 1266
SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1267
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The 1268
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), a 1289
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices with 1290
only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1291
SuperHyperEdges excluding only two interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1292
SuperHyperEdges. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the interior 1293
SuperHyperVertices minus their SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one. 1294
Example 6.3. In the Figure (21), the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), is 1295
highlighted and featured. The SuperHyperSet, {V27 , V2 , V7 , V12 , V22 , V25 }, of the 1296
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in the 1297
SuperHyperModel (21), is the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1298
Proposition 6.4. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Then a 1299
only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same 1301
SuperHyperNeighborhoods excluding one SuperHyperVertex. a Failed SuperHyperStable 1302
has the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one and the lower bound is the half 1303
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one. 1304
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1305
42/55
Figure 21. A SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable

SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), a 1331
only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same 1333
SuperHyperNeighborhoods excluding one SuperHyperVertex. a Failed 1334
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one and the lower 1335
43/55
Figure 22. A SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable

bound is the half number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one. 1336
Example 6.5. In the Figure (22), the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), is 1337
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1338
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in 1339
the SuperHyperModel (22), 1340
{{P13 , J13 , K13 , H13 },

{Z13 , W13 , V13 }, {U14 , T14 , R14 , S14 },
{P15 , J15 , K15 , R15 },
{J5 , O5 , K5 , L5 }, {J5 , O5 , K5 , L5 }, V3 ,
{U6 , H7 , J7 , K7 , O7 , L7 , P7 }, {T8 , U8 , V8 , S8 },
{T9 , K9 , J9 }, {H10 , J10 , E10 , R10 , W9 },
{S11 , R11 , O11 , L11 },
{U12 , V12 , W12 , Z12 , O12 },
{S7 , T7 , R7 , U7 }},
is the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1341
Proposition 6.6. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Then a Failed 1342
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the 1343
SuperHyperCenter, with only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1344
from common SuperHyperEdge, excluding only one SuperHyperVertex. a Failed 1345
SuperHyperStable has the number of the cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus 1346
one. 1347
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1348
44/55
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), a 1374
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, 1375
excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only all exceptions in the form of interior 1376
SuperHyperVertices from common SuperHyperEdge, excluding only one 1377
SuperHyperVertex. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of the cardinality of the 1378
second SuperHyperPart plus one. 1379
Example 6.7. In the Figure (23), the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), is 1380
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1381
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), in 1382
the SuperHyperModel (23), 1383
{{V14 , O14 , U14 },

{W14 , D15 , Z14 , C15 , E15 },
{P3 , O3 , R3 , L3 , S3 }, {P2 , T2 , S2 , R2 , O2 },
{O6 , O7 , K7 , P6 , H7 , J7 , E7 , L7 },
{J8 , Z10 , W10 , V10 }, {W11 , V11 , Z11 , C12 },
{U13 , T13 , R13 , S13 }, {H13 },
{E13 , D13 , C13 , Z12 }, }
Proposition 6.8. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Then a 1385
only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices titled 1387
SuperHyperNeighbors with only one exception. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the 1388
number of the cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart multiplies with the cardinality of 1389
the second SuperHyperPart plus one. 1390
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Let a 1391
45/55
Figure 23. A SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable

SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperBipartite 1417
N SHB : (V, E), a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior 1418
SuperHyperVertices with only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1419
titled SuperHyperNeighbors with only one exception. a Failed SuperHyperStable has 1420
46/55
Figure 24. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyper-

the number of the cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart multiplies with the 1421
cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus one. 1422
Example 6.9. In the Figure (24), the connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), 1423
is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1424
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperBipartite 1425
N SHB : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (24), 1426
{V1 , {C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },
Proposition 6.10. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). 1428
Then a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices 1429
with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from a 1430
SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from 1431
another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring one 1432
of them. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the summation on the 1433
cardinality of the all SuperHyperParts form distinct SuperHyperEdges plus one. 1434
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Let a 1435
47/55
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperMultipartite 1461
N SHM : (V, E), a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior 1462
SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1463
from a SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the form of interior 1464
SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with 1465
neglecting and ignoring one of them. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all 1466
the summation on the cardinality of the all SuperHyperParts form distinct 1467
SuperHyperEdges plus one. 1468
Example 6.11. In the Figure (25), the connected SuperHyperMultipartite 1469
N SHM : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the 1470
Algorithm in previous result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1471
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 1472
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
{Z7 , W7 }, {U7 , V7 }},
in the SuperHyperModel (25), is the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1473
Proposition 6.12. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Then a 1474
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, 1475
excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior 1476
SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion once. a Failed 1477
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the number of all the SuperHyperEdges have no 1478
common SuperHyperNeighbors for a SuperHyperVertex with the exclusion once. 1479
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1480
48/55
Figure 25. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHy-

perStable in the Example (6.11)
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 1506
a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, 1507
excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior 1508
SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion once. a Failed 1509
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the number of all the SuperHyperEdges have 1510
no common SuperHyperNeighbors for a SuperHyperVertex with the exclusion once. 1511
Example 6.13. In the Figure (26), the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 1512
is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1513
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 1514
{V5 ,
{Z13 , W13 , U13 , V13 , O14 },
{T10 , K10 , J10 },
{E7 , C7 , Z6 }, {K7 , J7 , L7 },
{T14 , U14 , R15 , S15 }},
in the SuperHyperModel (26), is the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1515
49/55
Figure 26. A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable

7 Open Problems 1516
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1517
The Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable are 1518
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1519
Question 7.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1520
recognitions? 1521
Question 7.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to Failed SuperHyperStable 1522
and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable? 1523
Question 7.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1524
compute them? 1525
Question 7.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the Failed 1526
SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable? 1527
Problem 7.5. The Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed 1528
SuperHyperStable do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based 1529
on Failed SuperHyperStable, are there else? 1530
Problem 7.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1531
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1532
Problem 7.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1533
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1534
8 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1535
In this research, the cancer is chosen as an phenomenon. Some general approaches are 1536
applied on it. Beyond that, some general arrangements of the situations are redefined 1537
alongside detailed-oriented illustrations, clarifications, analysis on the featured dense 1538
figures. The research proposes theoretical results on the cancer and mentioned cases 1539
only give us the perspective on the theoretical aspect with enriched background of the 1540
the mathematical framework arise from Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, 1541
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 1542
theory. In the Table (1), the structures of this research on what’s done and what’ll be 1543
Done are pointed out and figured out. 1544
50/55
Table 1. The Structures of This Research On What’s Done and What’ll be Done
What’s Done What’ll be Done
1. New Generating Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. Overall Hypothesis
2. Failed SuperHyperStable
3. Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 2. Cancer’s SuperHyperNumbers
4. Scheme of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. New Reproductions 3. SuperHyperFamilies-types
References 1545
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1546
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 1547
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 1548
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 1549
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 1550
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 1551
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 1552
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 1553
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 1554
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 1555
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 1556
(2022) 242-263. 1557
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 1558
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 1559
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1560
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1561
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 1562
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 1563
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 1564
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 1565
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 1566
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 1567
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 1568
6. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1569
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1570
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1571
7. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 1572
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1573
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1574
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1575
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1576
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1577
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 1578
51/55
9. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1579
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1580
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 1581
10. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1582
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1583
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 1584
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1585
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1587
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1588
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1589
12. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 1590
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 1591
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 1592
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 1593
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 1594
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 1595
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 1596
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 1597
14. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1598
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 1599
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 1600
15. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 1601
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 1602
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 1603
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 1604
16. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 1605
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 1606
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 1607
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 1608
17. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 1609
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 1610
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1611
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 1612
18. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 1613
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 1614
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1615
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 1616
19. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1617
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 1618
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30092.80004). 1619
20. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 1620
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 1621
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 1622
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 1623
52/55
21. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 1624
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 1625
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 1626
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 1627
22. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 1628
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1629
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 1630
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 1632
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 1633
24. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1634
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1635
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 1636
25. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1637
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1638
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1639
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 1640
26. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1641
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1642
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 1643
27. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1644
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1645
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1646
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 1647
28. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 1648
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 1649
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 1650
29. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 1651
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 1652
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 1653
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 1654
30. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 1655
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 1656
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 1657
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 1658
31. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 1659
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 1660
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 1661
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 1662
32. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 1663
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 1664
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 1665
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 1666
33. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 1667
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 1668
53/55
34. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 1669
(2016) 86-101. 1670
35. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 1671
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 1672
36. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 1673
37. M. Akram, and G. Shahzadi, “Operations on Single-Valued Neutrosophic 1674
Graphs”, Journal of uncertain systems 11 (1) (2017) 1-26. 1675
38. G. Argiroffo et al., “Polyhedra associated with locating-dominating, open 1676
locating-dominating and locating total-dominating sets in graphs”, Discrete 1677
Applied Mathematics (2022). (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2022.06.025.) 1678
39. L. Aronshtam, and H. Ilani, “Bounds on the average and minimum attendance 1679
in preference-based activity scheduling”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 306 1680
(2022) 114-119. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2021.09.024.) 1681
40. J. Asplund et al., “A Vizing-type result for semi-total domination”, Discrete 1682
Applied Mathematics 258 (2019) 8-12. 1683
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2018.11.023.) 1684
41. K. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets”, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20 (1986) 87-96. 1685
42. R.A. Beeler et al., “Total domination cover rubbling”, Discrete Applied 1686
Mathematics 283 (2020) 133-141. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2019.12.020.) 1687
43. S. Bermudo et al., “On the global total k-domination number of graphs”, 1688
Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 42-50. 1689
44. M. Bold, and M. Goerigk, “Investigating the recoverable robust single machine 1691
scheduling problem under interval uncertainty”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 1692
313 (2022) 99-114. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2022.02.005.) 1693
45. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 1694
(2016) 86-101. 1695
46. V. Gledel et al., “Maker–Breaker total domination game”, Discrete Applied 1696
Mathematics 282 (2020) 96-107. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2019.11.004.) 1697
47. M.A. Henning, and A. Yeo, “A new upper bound on the total domination 1698
number in graphs with minimum degree six ”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 302 1699
(2021) 1-7. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2021.05.033.) 1700
48. V. Irsic, “Effect of predomination and vertex removal on the game total 1701
domination number of a graph”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 257 (2019) 1702
216-225. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2018.09.011.) 1703
49. B.S. Panda, and P. Goyal, “Hardness results of global total k-domination 1704
problem in graphs”, Discrete Applied Mathematics (2021). 1705
50. N. Shah, and A. Hussain, “Neutrosophic soft graphs”, Neutrosophic Set and 1707
Systems 11 (2016) 31-44. 1708
51. A. Shannon and K.T. Atanassov, “A first step to a theory of the intuitionistic 1709
fuzzy graphs”, Proceeding of FUBEST (Lakov, D., Ed.) Sofia (1994) 59-61. 1710
54/55
52. F. Smarandache, “A Unifying field in logics neutrosophy: Neutrosophic 1711
probability, set and logic, Rehoboth: ” American Research Press (1998). 1712
53. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 1713
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 1714
54. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control 8 (1965) 338-354. 1715
55/55

Extremism of The Attacked Body Under The Cancer's Circumstances Where Cancer's Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extremism of The Attacked Body Under The Cancer's Circumstances Where Cancer's Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 12 January 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202301.0224.

Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 2

Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3

Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperStable” 10

I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 11

cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 12

SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 13

Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a maximal Failed SuperHyperStable of 14

SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 15

expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 16

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, 17

holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 18

“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a maximal 19

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 20

neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 22

|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 23

The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 24

second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. A basic 25

familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Neutrosophic Failed 26

SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 27

Keywords: SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable; Cancer’s 28

AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 30

by Shannon and Atanassov (1994), a unifying field in logics neutrosophy: neutrosophic 34

in Ref. [45] by Broumi et al. (2016), operations on single-valued neutrosophic graphs in 37

and Hussain (2016), bounds on the average and minimum attendance in 39

preference-based activity scheduling in Ref. [39] by Aronshtam and Ilani (2022), 40

© 2023 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

locating-dominating, open locating-dominating and locating total-dominating sets in 43

The formalization of the notions on the framework of Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 55

theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) 56

2 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 59

Recognition toward Extreme Failed 60

venues. Regarding the generality, the next section is introduced. 64

Definition 2.1. ((neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable). 65

Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 66

(i) a Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph 67

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 68

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 69

(ii) a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 71

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 72

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 73

there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 74

Definition 2.2. ((neutrosophic)δ−Failed SuperHyperStable). 76

Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 77

(i) an δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 78

(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 80

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (2.1)

The Expression (2.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 81

Expression (2.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 82

(ii) a neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal neutrosophic of 83

SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 84

the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 85

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (2.3)

And the Expression (2.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 88

3 General Extreme Results for Cancer’s Extreme 90

Recognition toward Extreme Failed 91

general results are introduced. 94

on the positions of the alphabets. 96

Corollary 3.2. Assume Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 97

SuperHyperStable coincide. 102

of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 104

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if and only if it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. 105